Welfare to Work Reforms - Literature review Example

Welfare to Work Reforms: Literature Review Number: Course: Lecturer: Date: Australian government came up with a number of alterations to the current income support system. This took effect as of July 2006. One of the changes known as Welfare to Work policy was intended to decrease dependency on welfare by moving welfare recipients into work. The Welfare to Work reform introduce a number of changes on both governmental and non-governmental service providers and impacted on most of marginalized Australians who relied on income support. The Welfare-to-Work reforms were actualized in July 2006, with the main focus of reducing long term dependence on welfare systems. The policy intended to move welfare recipients into work rather than solely depending on support payments. The policy was facilitated by placing restrictive criterion on pension and reviewing current recipients for eligibility. Those found illegible for such pensions as pension for the disabled and single parent support payments were placed on a Newstart and Youth payments. However, this new scheme requires Activity Test fulfilment which is intended to get citizens into work. If they forfeit the requirements, it resulted in participation failure which if reported three times in a twelve-month period, will subsequently lead to an eight-week suspension. Notably, documentation on the consequences of the policies and their operational significance is constrained as contextual data on the understanding of the affected population as well as the effectiveness of the policy is not well documented in current literature. This is as a result of the short period it takes for changes to occur as well as the political implications that non-payment penalties may cause as enforced by organizations such as Centrelink. Therefore the focus of this paper is to illuminate the effect of Welfare to Work policy on people who are affected by the reform. A literature review on the state of welfare policy in Australia reveals the debate carried on by some of the players in Welfare to Work agenda. This literature review is informed on the effect of the policies on people affected. This narrows to the problem of inefficiencies in welfare services in the larger perspective of the Federal Governments welfare agenda. Analysis of previous studies point out the fact that despite the governments grip to get people out of welfare and into the workplace, Welfare to Work systems continue to fail and the affects are more felt by those who are underprivileged. They are left with no income for a period of 8 weeks for the reason they failed to comply. According to Nicole Jones et al, (2010) the only way to derive useful insights on the usefulness of Welfare to Work policy is through discussions with community workers to give a chance to marginalized income support recipients to voice their concerns or appraisals. Jones conducted in-depth interviews with community workers to evaluate the effects of the policy on community wellbeing. Community workers provided valuable information concerning their clients when income support services are temporarily terminate and to a larger extend, the effectiveness of Welfare to Work agenda. Nicole Jones illustrate similar themes apparent in many Welfare to Work studies and point out to such factors as reconnection, advocacy and barriers to compliance. In the study, people who received participation failures were recognized as “reasonably not willing their payment requirements” even after social workers linked them to the system. The research noted that this notion if evaluated on a many users indicates the inadequacy of the Centrelink systems to recognizing inhibitors to compliance. Welfare to Work reforms desire shift people to payment systems rather than relying on welfare support. However, according to the author, those identified as not “work ready” require leverage social workers to acclimatize with the system. The lack of availability of a support program that facilitate clients in becoming “work ready” is identified by the researcher as the lead cause of noncompliance since Welfare to Work legislation only concentrate in fulfilling requirements for getting allowances. A number of other studies on the effect of the policy on the overall welfare of Australians indicated that welfare sanctions always affect the less fortunate in the society such as the homeless and drug addicts. According to Jones, Australia welfare system does not gather for the needs of recipients especially on case by case need as many welfare recipients lack understanding of the rules and requirements for compliance. Current reforms according to the author had the impact of exacerbating the issues experienced by vulnerable groups in adhering to Centrelink welfare-to-work regulations. First and foremost, the research identified officialdom and functionality of Centerlink in dissipating welfare services as a vital impediment[Cen]. Many of the social workers sampled pointed out to stressful nature of the organizations leadership especially the rigid rules and policies while engaging disadvantaged groups such as those experiencing homelessness and those afflicted with alcohol and drug dependency. Carney (2006:40) notes that welfare sanctions have proven a powerful tool for the job network, delivering excellent returns in many cases and in effect speeding up transition to work. Total elimination of the sanctions is supported by few, but on an individual level, many researchers have argued that the Australian welfare system adopts a standardized package that is not suited for specific situations of many of the populations. Schoonevaeldt and Tomlinson (2002) argue that the punitive welfare system implies that unemployed people can control over their unemployment status and only choose to starve when it comes to meeting Activity Test requirements. This discourse accords every individual the right to find a job and support their needs. However, the benefits and burdens of accessing work are differentiated by certain social groups. Research by Carney, (2006) illustrates a huge mismatch on implementation of compliance rules and regulations depending on individual vulnerabilities. Rules and compliances are vaguely understood by the subjects and are stringent on those with the most significant barriers to job opportunities. Past Welfare to Work programs have disadvantage those who are adversely affected by participation failures and paying the price such as those dependent on drugs and alcohol, single parents and the homeless. This was reinforced by Grace, Coventry and Wilson (2006:21) who argues that the double jeopardy presented by homelessness and unemployment supports each other to form a cyclic problem. In their quantitative study on individuals between the age of 18 and 35, it found that the numbers of unemployed and homeless are between 42,048 and 63,709. Likewise, Cameron (2006:3) explored the impacts of new legislations on single parenting. Single parents were disadvantage by the legislations because they have to find fifteen hours of paid work while at the same time take the responsibility of caring their child/children who in some cases might have developmental problems. Vast amounts of literature point to a current welfare system that is rigid and deprives the social rights of individuals by defining dependency as a consequence enforced on all citizens by the needs of the Australian underclass. The discourse is compounded further by combination of Welfare to Work and recent industrial relations legislative changes that force the jobless to work in sub-standard conditions as a way of satisfying Centrelink provisions and eliminating poverty brought by it. A review of the penalty and breach activities conducted by an independent party in 2001 pointed out to an excessively harsh and unfair system that require an overhaul (Pearce et al 2002:9) However, recent reports show large number of citizens getting participation failures even after the reforms. This points out to an Australian welfare system which is stringent in enforcing penalties the vulnerable. Carney (2006:28) conducted a research on the changing discourse in Australian welfare systems since Howard administration in 2006. The research found that neo-liberalists concept of welfare has greatly empowered Job Network providers to recommend sanctioning of a client by Centrelink. The 1997 privatisation of Job Network providers had adverse effects on Centerlink and its members. The institution operates more openly while handling the jobless whereas Centerlink officers on the other hand, are guided by bureaucratic procedures while deciding on those to award and reject participation failures for Job Network users. Unfair punishment and penalties has been reported for unemployed people because of disproportion of Mutual Obligation policies related to Activity Test and Work (ACOSS and NWRN, 2000).The argument is that the eight week suspension on welfare benefits which leaves unemployed people without any source of income is ineffective in changing people’s attitudes and efforts toward work. Rather, it increases unnecessary hardship and turmoil for the beneficiaries and their families leading to other unfavourable consequences such as crime. Research on penalty systems and the experiences of those affected by it are scarce and may present a starting point for future exploration. For instance, experiences of persons who have received participation failures and their individual circumstances, and probably their future dealings with organizations such as Centrelink are less represented in literature. Likewise, grassroots perspectives on how effective the system is in eliminating the barriers that unemployed people face while trying to enter the workplace needs more consideration. Word count 1507 Reference List Cen: , (Centrelink., n.d.), Read More